With Schumacher having 1 car failure and Senna having 6. Senna finished only 3 points back. It's not really a fair comparison.

Yeah plus how do you determine which was actually the fastest car, this seems to be simply google the points and then Schumacher beat him, also Schumacher had a better engine in the first half of the season but then again this all ties into who had the best package?

You are forgetting that Berger had 2 wins as well and beat Brindle. The McLaren wasn't at Williams level, but it won 5 races. To Benetton's 1.

And without 5 extra retirements Senna would have comfortably outscored Schumacher. What's your point on this?

Mikey the argument was that Schumacher would never beat Senna with a lesser car. He arguably did that over a season. Retirements are part of the game so it doesn't change anything. He did beat him over a season

No the argument was saying specifically that Schumacher would have beat Senna in a lesser car, who is being obtuse now?

We're discussing how governing body and fan perception has changed since the late 80's. Senna was an example of reckless behavior and unsportsmanlike conduct then that wouldn't be tolerated today. Back on topic, please.

_________________Life-Long F1 Fan from 1965 -- More than 575 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

Last edited by MB-BOB on Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We're discussing how governing body and fan perception has changed since the late 80's. Senna was an example of reckless behavior then that wouldn't be tolerated today. Back on topic, please.

I've been thinking about this and I think if it happened now I think Senna would get a ten place grid penalty for next race. I think the stewards and the FIA would bottle it. The stewards were going to bottle giving Vettel a penalty in Azerbaijan until it looked like he was going to win.

Schumacher was an easy target because he didn't win. His penalty meant nothing effectively. If Villenueve had retired as well it would have been very interesting.

I've been thinking about this and I think if it happened now I think Senna would get a ten place grid penalty for next race. I think the stewards and the FIA would bottle it. The stewards were going to bottle giving Vettel a penalty in Azerbaijan until it looked like he was going to win.

Schumacher was an easy target because he didn't win. His penalty meant nothing effectively. If Villenueve had retired as well it would have been very interesting.

Considering the way he pre-announced his intentions before the 1990 Japanese GP, I think (in today's environment) Senna would receive a 6-race ban...

He received a 6-race ban (that was suspended) after the 1989 season. The only reason I can rationalize for not receiving a 6-race ban after 1990 was because FIA didn't have the gonads to punish a defending WDC.

We're not discussing Schumacher...

_________________Life-Long F1 Fan from 1965 -- More than 575 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

I've been thinking about this and I think if it happened now I think Senna would get a ten place grid penalty for next race. I think the stewards and the FIA would bottle it. The stewards were going to bottle giving Vettel a penalty in Azerbaijan until it looked like he was going to win.

Schumacher was an easy target because he didn't win. His penalty meant nothing effectively. If Villenueve had retired as well it would have been very interesting.

Considering the way he pre-announced his intentions before the 1990 Japanese GP, I think (in today's environment) Senna would receive a 6-race ban...

He received a 6-race ban (that was suspended) after the 1989 season. The only reason I can rationalize for not receiving a 6-race ban after 1990 was because FIA didn't have the gonads to punish a defending WDC.

We're not discussing Schumacher...

Schumacher is relevant because of the precedent. Senna said something in 1990 pretty similar to Prost in 89. He didn't receive a penalty either.

Honestly a 6 race ban still means nothing really if you allow the cheating driver to remain champion.

How on earth can a car driven at similar pace but with much better reliability be considered "equal, if not worse"?

People tend to only bring reliability in if it favours their argument. There are plenty of examples of slightly slower cars being better cars due to reliability. The 2005 Renault vs 2005 Mclaren being the extreme case. The Renault having 3/4 mechanical issues through the year and the Mclaren having 12-13 issues.

We're discussing how governing body and fan perception has changed since the late 80's. Senna was an example of reckless behavior then that wouldn't be tolerated today. Back on topic, please.

I've been thinking about this and I think if it happened now I think Senna would get a ten place grid penalty for next race. I think the stewards and the FIA would bottle it. The stewards were going to bottle giving Vettel a penalty in Azerbaijan until it looked like he was going to win.

Schumacher was an easy target because he didn't win. His penalty meant nothing effectively. If Villenueve had retired as well it would have been very interesting.

Schumacher would have won the title in 1997 if JV had retired after the collision, the punishment was purely symbolic. It was the perfect symbol as we haven't had a title decided in this manner since, whilst in the years before we had 89,90,94 and 97 (4 out of 9 years) decided by a collision.

We're discussing how governing body and fan perception has changed since the late 80's. Senna was an example of reckless behavior then that wouldn't be tolerated today. Back on topic, please.

I've been thinking about this and I think if it happened now I think Senna would get a ten place grid penalty for next race. I think the stewards and the FIA would bottle it. The stewards were going to bottle giving Vettel a penalty in Azerbaijan until it looked like he was going to win.

Schumacher was an easy target because he didn't win. His penalty meant nothing effectively. If Villenueve had retired as well it would have been very interesting.

Yep, was Schumacher really penalised, he kept all his wins, finishing second is meaningless really.

I've been thinking about this and I think if it happened now I think Senna would get a ten place grid penalty for next race. I think the stewards and the FIA would bottle it. The stewards were going to bottle giving Vettel a penalty in Azerbaijan until it looked like he was going to win.

Schumacher was an easy target because he didn't win. His penalty meant nothing effectively. If Villenueve had retired as well it would have been very interesting.

Considering the way he pre-announced his intentions before the 1990 Japanese GP, I think (in today's environment) Senna would receive a 6-race ban...

He received a 6-race ban (that was suspended) after the 1989 season. The only reason I can rationalize for not receiving a 6-race ban after 1990 was because FIA didn't have the gonads to punish a defending WDC.

We're not discussing Schumacher...

Schumacher is relevant because of the precedent. Senna said something in 1990 pretty similar to Prost in 89. He didn't receive a penalty either.

Honestly a 6 race ban still means nothing really if you allow the cheating driver to remain champion.

Yes didn't Prost say something alone the lines that if Senna tries to pass him he won't jump out of the way?

Schumacher was an easy target because he didn't win. His penalty meant nothing effectively. If Villenueve had retired as well it would have been very interesting.

Yep, was Schumacher really penalised, he kept all his wins, finishing second is meaningless really.

Why should he have lost the wins? He didn't cheat in any of them. If he'd won the race where he hit Villeneuve that would have been different, but it was a misconduct in that race, not in any of the rest.

And disqualifying him from the championship may not have hurt him in that season (he lost anyway) but it did send the message that trying it again would be fruitless, and to this day no one has. Prior to and including 1997, over the last eight years fully half the driver's titles had been decided by an intentional collision. After that, it's never happened. For me, that proves that the penalty worked as intended.

How on earth can a car driven at similar pace but with much better reliability be considered "equal, if not worse"?

People tend to only bring reliability in if it favours their argument. There are plenty of examples of slightly slower cars being better cars due to reliability. The 2005 Renault vs 2005 Mclaren being the extreme case. The Renault having 3/4 mechanical issues through the year and the Mclaren having 12-13 issues.

lamo, I did not mention reliability at all to favour my argument. Mikey brought the reliability in the discussion. All I said is that Schumacher did manage to win with a slower car. Arguably slower. It's not only Schumacher that would have finished behind Senna (had Senna not retired so many times), but their team mates also had the same pattern. Senna had retirements, but so did the others. Only Schumacher was lucky enough and also managed to keep his nose clean between these 4 drivers and he got more points than the others.

My argument was a reply in pokerman's statement that Schumacher could not beat Senna in an inferior car. In 1992 he finished ahead in points. It is because Senna had more retirements, but the issue was never how he won; just that in a slower (again arguably) car Schumacher could beat Senna. As simple as that.

Schumacher was an easy target because he didn't win. His penalty meant nothing effectively. If Villenueve had retired as well it would have been very interesting.

Yep, was Schumacher really penalised, he kept all his wins, finishing second is meaningless really.

Why should he have lost the wins? He didn't cheat in any of them. If he'd won the race where he hit Villeneuve that would have been different, but it was a misconduct in that race, not in any of the rest.

And disqualifying him from the championship may not have hurt him in that season (he lost anyway) but it did send the message that trying it again would be fruitless, and to this day no one has. Prior to and including 1997, over the last eight years fully half the driver's titles had been decided by an intentional collision. After that, it's never happened. For me, that proves that the penalty worked as intended.

Yes I see your point, I'm just saying that as a stand alone punishment for Schumacher it effectively really wasn't a punishment for him.

How on earth can a car driven at similar pace but with much better reliability be considered "equal, if not worse"?

People tend to only bring reliability in if it favours their argument. There are plenty of examples of slightly slower cars being better cars due to reliability. The 2005 Renault vs 2005 Mclaren being the extreme case. The Renault having 3/4 mechanical issues through the year and the Mclaren having 12-13 issues.

lamo, I did not mention reliability at all to favour my argument. Mikey brought the reliability in the discussion. All I said is that Schumacher did manage to win with a slower car. Arguably slower. It's not only Schumacher that would have finished behind Senna (had Senna not retired so many times), but their team mates also had the same pattern. Senna had retirements, but so did the others. Only Schumacher was lucky enough and also managed to keep his nose clean between these 4 drivers and he got more points than the others.

My argument was a reply in pokerman's statement that Schumacher could not beat Senna in an inferior car. In 1992 he finished ahead in points. It is because Senna had more retirements, but the issue was never how he won; just that in a slower (again arguably) car Schumacher could beat Senna. As simple as that.

We don't have to be hypothetical here, history going forward shows that Senna would have had a car reliable enough to win the titles.

Also let's get the timeline straight here, I was replying to a post that said that Schumacher would have beat Senna in an inferior car, I just didn't come forward with my statement out of the blue.

How on earth can a car driven at similar pace but with much better reliability be considered "equal, if not worse"?

Mikey, the argument posed was regarding a faster car, not more reliable. That's what pokerman said.

The McLaren looked faster over the whole season. I wish POB could help with his stats on this.

No, that's not true. Your initial reply was to Pokerman's post where he said Schumacher wouldn't best Senna in an "inferior" car.

That's not the same at all. Ide could beat Senna in a slower car if Senna retired.

Indeed and Schumacher in fact only beat Senna once on track all season.

Senna's car failed him in 5 of 16 races, that's the equivalent of Hamilton posting 6 retirements last season, with that retirement rate he would have only finished 3rd in the WDC despite being the fastest car/driver combination.

How on earth can a car driven at similar pace but with much better reliability be considered "equal, if not worse"?

Mikey, the argument posed was regarding a faster car, not more reliable. That's what pokerman said.

The McLaren looked faster over the whole season. I wish POB could help with his stats on this.

No, that's not true. Your initial reply was to Pokerman's post where he said Schumacher wouldn't best Senna in an "inferior" car.

That's not the same at all. Ide could beat Senna in a slower car if Senna retired.

My bad Mikey, I stand corrected, it was indeed mentioned as an inferior car. We can argue which car was better and why, both cars had retirements due to mechanical issues. I do wish we had a fair comparison of the two.

Taking all into account though, Schumacher was getting all the more better and faster. So is it so far fetched that he could have beat Senna in an inferior car? Depending how much worse a car and circumstances, I'd wager that it was doable.

How on earth can a car driven at similar pace but with much better reliability be considered "equal, if not worse"?

Mikey, the argument posed was regarding a faster car, not more reliable. That's what pokerman said.

The McLaren looked faster over the whole season. I wish POB could help with his stats on this.

No, that's not true. Your initial reply was to Pokerman's post where he said Schumacher wouldn't best Senna in an "inferior" car.

That's not the same at all. Ide could beat Senna in a slower car if Senna retired.

My bad Mikey, I stand corrected, it was indeed mentioned as an inferior car. We can argue which car was better and why, both cars had retirements due to mechanical issues. I do wish we had a fair comparison of the two.

Taking all into account though, Schumacher was getting all the more better and faster. So is it so far fetched that he could have beat Senna in an inferior car? Depending how much worse a car and circumstances, I'd wager that it was doable.

I think it's possible but unlikely. Senna would need to make a lot of mistakes. I don't see it happening in 95. Even with Hill speed he would have been seriously contending without the mistakes and Senna was much quicker than Hill.

How on earth can a car driven at similar pace but with much better reliability be considered "equal, if not worse"?

Mikey, the argument posed was regarding a faster car, not more reliable. That's what pokerman said.

The McLaren looked faster over the whole season. I wish POB could help with his stats on this.

No, that's not true. Your initial reply was to Pokerman's post where he said Schumacher wouldn't best Senna in an "inferior" car.

That's not the same at all. Ide could beat Senna in a slower car if Senna retired.

My bad Mikey, I stand corrected, it was indeed mentioned as an inferior car. We can argue which car was better and why, both cars had retirements due to mechanical issues. I do wish we had a fair comparison of the two.

Taking all into account though, Schumacher was getting all the more better and faster. So is it so far fetched that he could have beat Senna in an inferior car? Depending how much worse a car and circumstances, I'd wager that it was doable.

The disparity in retirements due to mechanical issues between Senna and Schumacher was similar to the the disparity between Hamilton and Vettel last year. Would you suggest, both Hamilton and Vettel had mechanical issues last year too? Hinting it was somewhat equal. In both years, one driver suffered a lot more than the other.

Stick to the facts, Schumacher had 2, Senna had 5. Last year, Vettel had 3 (?) and Hamilton 0 and it turned what might have been a Vettel title into an easy Hamilton title wrapped up with 3 races to go.

If you only look at a WDC result table and do not factor in car reliability, injuries, bans etc you end up with Eddie Irvine drawing 2-2 with Schumacher in their seasons together. This is an F1 forum we go a lot deeper than that here. I don't think many here believe Irvine beat Schumacher in 1997 and 1999 in any meaningful sense? Similarly I've never heard anybody criticize Kimi for losing the title in 2005 in the fastest car as Alonso was bulletproof and Kimi had 7 mechanically affected races in an 18 race season. Context is everything.

Schumacher was up and coming and very good in 1992 no doubt, but he out scored Brundle 53-38 and Brundle had one more DNF and was regularly finishing in the top 3/4. Brundle has said he was clear number 2 during this period too, much like all of Schumacher's Benetton team mates have said. They ran a clear 1 car team 1992-1995 which they also did under Briatore/Renault with Alonso.

How on earth can a car driven at similar pace but with much better reliability be considered "equal, if not worse"?

Mikey, the argument posed was regarding a faster car, not more reliable. That's what pokerman said.

The McLaren looked faster over the whole season. I wish POB could help with his stats on this.

No, that's not true. Your initial reply was to Pokerman's post where he said Schumacher wouldn't best Senna in an "inferior" car.

That's not the same at all. Ide could beat Senna in a slower car if Senna retired.

My bad Mikey, I stand corrected, it was indeed mentioned as an inferior car. We can argue which car was better and why, both cars had retirements due to mechanical issues. I do wish we had a fair comparison of the two.

Taking all into account though, Schumacher was getting all the more better and faster. So is it so far fetched that he could have beat Senna in an inferior car? Depending how much worse a car and circumstances, I'd wager that it was doable.

I think it's possible but unlikely. Senna would need to make a lot of mistakes. I don't see it happening in 95. Even with Hill speed he would have been seriously contending without the mistakes and Senna was much quicker than Hill.

Fully agreed with that. I think that although difficult, it wouldn't be impossible; no more than a rookie matching a 2xWDC or another beating a 4xWDC. These things can happen. If we also take into account that Senna didn't really like the refuelling era with the increasing speeds (although I can't find the quote where I read this now), then that possibility starts to look a tad bigger.

How on earth can a car driven at similar pace but with much better reliability be considered "equal, if not worse"?

People tend to only bring reliability in if it favours their argument. There are plenty of examples of slightly slower cars being better cars due to reliability. The 2005 Renault vs 2005 Mclaren being the extreme case. The Renault having 3/4 mechanical issues through the year and the Mclaren having 12-13 issues.

lamo, I did not mention reliability at all to favour my argument. Mikey brought the reliability in the discussion. All I said is that Schumacher did manage to win with a slower car. Arguably slower. It's not only Schumacher that would have finished behind Senna (had Senna not retired so many times), but their team mates also had the same pattern. Senna had retirements, but so did the others. Only Schumacher was lucky enough and also managed to keep his nose clean between these 4 drivers and he got more points than the others.

My argument was a reply in pokerman's statement that Schumacher could not beat Senna in an inferior car. In 1992 he finished ahead in points. It is because Senna had more retirements, but the issue was never how he won; just that in a slower (again arguably) car Schumacher could beat Senna. As simple as that.

We don't have to be hypothetical here, history going forward shows that Senna would have had a car reliable enough to win the titles.

Also let's get the timeline straight here, I was replying to a post that said that Schumacher would have beat Senna in an inferior car, I just didn't come forward with my statement out of the blue.

Please read again... It was you that mentioned "inferior car" when replying to F1 MERCENARY's post. He doesn't mention an inferior car anywhere. So please, don't make things up:

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

Prost beat Senna in 1993 because he had much the better car, what is more telling is that Williams replaced Prost with Senna the year after, some forumers may think that Prost was better, the people that count in the paddock thought otherwise.

Senna was half a second quicker than Hill, this was basically the level of competition that Schumacher had left to beat, and you think Schumacher is beating Senna in 1995, 1996 and 1997 in an inferior car, really?

Mikey, the argument posed was regarding a faster car, not more reliable. That's what pokerman said.

The McLaren looked faster over the whole season. I wish POB could help with his stats on this.

No, that's not true. Your initial reply was to Pokerman's post where he said Schumacher wouldn't best Senna in an "inferior" car.

That's not the same at all. Ide could beat Senna in a slower car if Senna retired.

My bad Mikey, I stand corrected, it was indeed mentioned as an inferior car. We can argue which car was better and why, both cars had retirements due to mechanical issues. I do wish we had a fair comparison of the two.

Taking all into account though, Schumacher was getting all the more better and faster. So is it so far fetched that he could have beat Senna in an inferior car? Depending how much worse a car and circumstances, I'd wager that it was doable.

I think it's possible but unlikely. Senna would need to make a lot of mistakes. I don't see it happening in 95. Even with Hill speed he would have been seriously contending without the mistakes and Senna was much quicker than Hill.

Fully agreed with that. I think that although difficult, it wouldn't be impossible; no more than a rookie matching a 2xWDC or another beating a 4xWDC. These things can happen. If we also take into account that Senna didn't really like the refuelling era with the increasing speeds (although I can't find the quote where I read this now), then that possibility starts to look a tad bigger.

With this you are comparing drivers in the same team as opposed to Schumacher driving an inferior car.

How on earth can a car driven at similar pace but with much better reliability be considered "equal, if not worse"?

People tend to only bring reliability in if it favours their argument. There are plenty of examples of slightly slower cars being better cars due to reliability. The 2005 Renault vs 2005 Mclaren being the extreme case. The Renault having 3/4 mechanical issues through the year and the Mclaren having 12-13 issues.

lamo, I did not mention reliability at all to favour my argument. Mikey brought the reliability in the discussion. All I said is that Schumacher did manage to win with a slower car. Arguably slower. It's not only Schumacher that would have finished behind Senna (had Senna not retired so many times), but their team mates also had the same pattern. Senna had retirements, but so did the others. Only Schumacher was lucky enough and also managed to keep his nose clean between these 4 drivers and he got more points than the others.

My argument was a reply in pokerman's statement that Schumacher could not beat Senna in an inferior car. In 1992 he finished ahead in points. It is because Senna had more retirements, but the issue was never how he won; just that in a slower (again arguably) car Schumacher could beat Senna. As simple as that.

We don't have to be hypothetical here, history going forward shows that Senna would have had a car reliable enough to win the titles.

Also let's get the timeline straight here, I was replying to a post that said that Schumacher would have beat Senna in an inferior car, I just didn't come forward with my statement out of the blue.

Please read again... It was you that mentioned "inferior car" when replying to F1 MERCENARY's post. He doesn't mention an inferior car anywhere. So please, don't make things up:

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

Prost beat Senna in 1993 because he had much the better car, what is more telling is that Williams replaced Prost with Senna the year after, some forumers may think that Prost was better, the people that count in the paddock thought otherwise.

Senna was half a second quicker than Hill, this was basically the level of competition that Schumacher had left to beat, and you think Schumacher is beating Senna in 1995, 1996 and 1997 in an inferior car, really?

No, that's not true. Your initial reply was to Pokerman's post where he said Schumacher wouldn't best Senna in an "inferior" car.

That's not the same at all. Ide could beat Senna in a slower car if Senna retired.

My bad Mikey, I stand corrected, it was indeed mentioned as an inferior car. We can argue which car was better and why, both cars had retirements due to mechanical issues. I do wish we had a fair comparison of the two.

Taking all into account though, Schumacher was getting all the more better and faster. So is it so far fetched that he could have beat Senna in an inferior car? Depending how much worse a car and circumstances, I'd wager that it was doable.

I think it's possible but unlikely. Senna would need to make a lot of mistakes. I don't see it happening in 95. Even with Hill speed he would have been seriously contending without the mistakes and Senna was much quicker than Hill.

Fully agreed with that. I think that although difficult, it wouldn't be impossible; no more than a rookie matching a 2xWDC or another beating a 4xWDC. These things can happen. If we also take into account that Senna didn't really like the refuelling era with the increasing speeds (although I can't find the quote where I read this now), then that possibility starts to look a tad bigger.

With this you are comparing drivers in the same team as opposed to Schumacher driving an inferior car.

I was comparing outcomes that were near impossible to fathom at the beginning of that season. You can add Button in 2009 if you want

lamo, I did not mention reliability at all to favour my argument. Mikey brought the reliability in the discussion. All I said is that Schumacher did manage to win with a slower car. Arguably slower. It's not only Schumacher that would have finished behind Senna (had Senna not retired so many times), but their team mates also had the same pattern. Senna had retirements, but so did the others. Only Schumacher was lucky enough and also managed to keep his nose clean between these 4 drivers and he got more points than the others.

My argument was a reply in pokerman's statement that Schumacher could not beat Senna in an inferior car. In 1992 he finished ahead in points. It is because Senna had more retirements, but the issue was never how he won; just that in a slower (again arguably) car Schumacher could beat Senna. As simple as that.

We don't have to be hypothetical here, history going forward shows that Senna would have had a car reliable enough to win the titles.

Also let's get the timeline straight here, I was replying to a post that said that Schumacher would have beat Senna in an inferior car, I just didn't come forward with my statement out of the blue.

Please read again... It was you that mentioned "inferior car" when replying to F1 MERCENARY's post. He doesn't mention an inferior car anywhere. So please, don't make things up:

pokerman wrote:

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Senna was already seen as the best in the sport before he died. I don't think his reputation suddenly grew afterwards

He was seen as the best in the sport by some, others (myself included) felt Prost was the better of the two and in his final year of F1 Prost once again beat a solid field of drivers that included Senna, and all after sitting out a full year.

What was said is that Senna was the best of his generation and that's what I disagree with. He certainly had the pure talent to be just that but since he resorted to things other than driving frequently, and was as arrogant as he was, he took away from his place on the list of greats for me personally.

At the time of his death the NKOTB was Schumacher and while perhaps not as good as Senna at that point, he was just about there and had he not died, Schumacher would have have beaten him just like everyone else. The one thing about Senna is that while he was quicker than everyone else, he was only just so. Schumacher on the other hand was initially just faster than everyone but once he got a couple years of experience under his belt, he was considerably faster than everyone including his teammates and none of them came close consistently until Rubens in a couple of seasons.

Please understand that I know full well the capabilities of Senna in a race car, but being the best entails more than just that. Knowing that Senna was faster than Prost on pure pace, it speaks to Prost's completeness because although Senna was generally a touch quicker he was NEVER outclassed and held his own extremely well. That's why I rate Prost the best driver of that generation.

Prost beat Senna in 1993 because he had much the better car, what is more telling is that Williams replaced Prost with Senna the year after, some forumers may think that Prost was better, the people that count in the paddock thought otherwise.

Senna was half a second quicker than Hill, this was basically the level of competition that Schumacher had left to beat, and you think Schumacher is beating Senna in 1995, 1996 and 1997 in an inferior car, really?

So Schumacher was not in an inferior car in 1995, 1996 and 1997?

Nice try, but that's not what I said. You did not reply to a post that mentioned Schumacher in an inferior car, as per the bold part above. You brought the inferior car in the conversation, so again don't make things up. But this is getting into silly nitpicking, so I'll drop it here.

My bad Mikey, I stand corrected, it was indeed mentioned as an inferior car. We can argue which car was better and why, both cars had retirements due to mechanical issues. I do wish we had a fair comparison of the two.

Taking all into account though, Schumacher was getting all the more better and faster. So is it so far fetched that he could have beat Senna in an inferior car? Depending how much worse a car and circumstances, I'd wager that it was doable.

I think it's possible but unlikely. Senna would need to make a lot of mistakes. I don't see it happening in 95. Even with Hill speed he would have been seriously contending without the mistakes and Senna was much quicker than Hill.

Fully agreed with that. I think that although difficult, it wouldn't be impossible; no more than a rookie matching a 2xWDC or another beating a 4xWDC. These things can happen. If we also take into account that Senna didn't really like the refuelling era with the increasing speeds (although I can't find the quote where I read this now), then that possibility starts to look a tad bigger.

With this you are comparing drivers in the same team as opposed to Schumacher driving an inferior car.

I was comparing outcomes that were near impossible to fathom at the beginning of that season. You can add Button in 2009 if you want

We are not looking into the future here but looking into the past, in 1995 Williams had 11 pole positions in 16 races and that was with tier 2 drivers that were more than half a second slower than Senna, yet we are told that Schumacher would have beat Senna that year.

Nice try, but that's not what I said. You did not reply to a post that mentioned Schumacher in an inferior car, as per the bold part above. You brought the inferior car in the conversation, so again don't make things up. But this is getting into silly nitpicking, so I'll drop it here.

It was said that Schumacher would have beat Senna in 1995 and it's a fact that Schumacher had an inferior car, you think this is nitpicking?

Nice try, but that's not what I said. You did not reply to a post that mentioned Schumacher in an inferior car, as per the bold part above. You brought the inferior car in the conversation, so again don't make things up. But this is getting into silly nitpicking, so I'll drop it here.

It was said that Schumacher would have beat Senna in 1995 and it's a fact that Schumacher had an inferior car, you think this is nitpicking?

F1 Mercenary never mentioned any dates, so that's your interpretation. You deducted the inferior car on your own, as this was never mentioned either. But you never address these things.

The reality is that if Senna didn't die that horrible weekend in Italy, then we can't be sure if he would have beaten Schumacher in 1995. This is my belief because of what happened in the aftermath of that accident. The cars changed drastically, horsepower reduced, cockpit layout changed, weight, weight distribution, wings, etc. The cars were so different that in Monaco the pole was 2.5 secs slower in '95. So no, we could not know how the drivers would have fared if Senna hadn't died and all these changes didn't happen. Benneton was a light and nimble car in 1994 and switching the engine to the Renault gave them a lot of trouble in the beginning of 1995. Take what you want from this, but it is my opinion in this "what if" scenario.

Benettton might not have even got the Renault engine if Senna lived. Once Senna died the 1994 grid had no champions on it and the driver with the most wins had about 7. Renault decided to align with the sports new star.

With regards to "new cars, new tyres, new this", I read this a lot and history has shown with major rules changes change very little. The only subtly change is the better drivers become a little better initially.

2016-2017 - no dynamics changed between team mate pairings that remained the same.

2013 to 2014- no dynamics changed between team mate pairings that remained the same.

2008 to 2009 - no dynamics changed between team mate pairings that remained the same.

Quick drivers have always remained quick, Senna was probably the most adaptable driver of all time. The first time he ever drove an F1 car he was quicker than Williams' race driver within 10 laps. He went from Lotus to Mclaren and was quicker than Prost from day 1. The same when he went from Turbo to NA, the gap to Prost grew. Then when gadgets went onto the cars he stayed at the same level as he did when they were abruptly removed. The only time he ever drove an Indycar he was on the pace of the current line up within the first hour or so.

Top tier drivers do not suffer with rule changes, they never have and never will. The only driver that ruins these patterns is Kimi Raikkonen who also ruins the "drivers always do better in the 2nd season when joining a team" pattern too. He is very inconsistent and fickle with his car, why he isn't a top driver. He didn't even ever race road/ none single seater cars but beat an all star grid at the 1984 Mercedes S class event at the Nurburgring with pole and the win.

Having written all that, the cars barely changed from 1994 to 1995 anyway it was not a major rule change. The engines went from 3.5 litre to 3.0 was the biggest change in terms of lap time which does not affect the actual driving at all, with the engines losing about 60-80 BHP. The difference between a Mercedes and a Honda currently, 1-2 seconds per lap.

People also say, Senna was getting old. He was the same age as Damon Hill who battled MS in 1995 and won the title in 1996. He would have also been 2 years younger in 1995 than Prost was when he won the title in 1993 and 3 years younger than when Mansell won his in 1992 who was driving cars 4-6 seconds per lap quicker than the cars of 1995.

Hill should have also easily won the 1995 title. He won 4 races in 16. Collided twice with Schumacher when trying to overtake him (i.e. he had the pace to keep up and try overtake him), lost another 1-2 races by spinning off and lost another 1-2 due to reliability. Hill himself had the speed to win about 10-12 races that season.

He actually drove a really good first 7 races that would have been 4 wins and 3 2nds if not for reliability issues and a strong championship lead. But it was the remainder of the season that he blew it with his driving and the car was reliable then too.

Benettton might not have even got the Renault engine if Senna lived. Once Senna died the 1994 grid had no champions on it and the driver with the most wins had about 7. Renault decided to align with the sports new star.

With regards to "new cars, new tyres, new this", I read this a lot and history has shown with major rules changes change very little. The only subtly change is the better drivers become a little better initially.

2016-2017 - no dynamics changed between team mate pairings that remained the same.

2013 to 2014- no dynamics changed between team mate pairings that remained the same.

2008 to 2009 - no dynamics changed between team mate pairings that remained the same.

Quick drivers have always remained quick, Senna was probably the most adaptable driver of all time. The first time he ever drove an F1 car he was quicker than Williams' race driver within 10 laps. He went from Lotus to Mclaren and was quicker than Prost from day 1. The same when he went from Turbo to NA, the gap to Prost grew. Then when gadgets went onto the cars he stayed at the same level as he did when they were abruptly removed. The only time he ever drove an Indycar he was on the pace of the current line up within the first hour or so.

Top tier drivers do not suffer with rule changes, they never have and never will. The only driver that ruins these patterns is Kimi Raikkonen who also ruins the "drivers always do better in the 2nd season when joining a team" pattern too. He is very inconsistent and fickle with his car, why he isn't a top driver.

Having written all that, the cars barely changed from 1994 to 1995 anyway it was not a major rule change. The engines went from 3.5 litre to 3.0 was the biggest change in terms of lap time which does not affect the actual driving at all, with the engines losing about 60-80 BHP. The difference between a Mercedes and a Honda currently, 1-2 seconds per lap.

People also say, Senna was getting old. He was the same age as Damon Hill who battled MS in 1995 and won the title in 1996. He would have also been 2 years younger in 1995 than Prost was when he won the title in 1993 and 3 years younger than when Mansell won his in 1992.

I'm glad I'm amusing you lamo.

The big change mentioned above was regarding the Benetton cars, I should have made this clear, that's why I mentioned going from a light nimble car to the heavier and more difficult one. Of course a rule change affects everyone in the grid the same, but Benetton changing their engine was a big deal to them. I remember reports that when the team got to the first tests (or race, can't remember), most team members were sporting a beard from the overtime that they had to work in order to get these cars ready. They got a heavier V10 instead of the V8, plus they redesigned their suspension and gearbox. It was very different to the previous year's car and the handling caught out the drivers a few times. Had they developed the V8 car, who knows what the outcome would have been?

Benetton had a big change from 1994 to 1995, Williams did not. So I don't get your point? Benetton needed a competitive 3.0 litre engine, Ford could not offer them one. So either way Benetton were going to significantly change going from 1994 to 1995 as Ford did not develop a works 3.0 litre engine. That is why Benetton left them, Fords budget was about 1/4 of Renaults. The cars were also similar weights in 1994 and 1995. With the engines switching to 3.0 it also favored a V10.

It is reported the Ford went from 740 to 600 bhp at the start of 1995.The Renault went form 790 to 750 bhp at the start of 1995.

Benetton had to intergrate the larger V10 Renault quite late in the season once the 1995 car was well into its development. This is why in part this car is without doubt the worst car Schumacher won a title in and consider very hard to setup and always on a knife edge, it was not a good car. He won the title because the drivers in the cars better or equal to it were no where near as good as Schumacher (Both Williams and Ferrari drivers).

Williams knew all along they would be switching to the V10 3.0 and was quick right away, Hill should have won the first 3 races of 1995. Your post was in relation to Senna adapting to 1995 rules, what did he have to adapt to exactly and why would you suggest such when history shows him as probably the most adaptable driver of all time. 1994-1995 would have been one of the more stable periods during Senna's career.

Benetton had a big change from 1994 to 1995, Williams did not. So I don't get your point? Benetton needed a competitive 3.0 litre engine, Ford could not offer them one. So either way Benetton were going to significantly change going from 1994 to 1995 as Ford did not develop a works 3.0 litre engine. That is why Benetton left them, Fords budget was about 1/4 of Renaults. The cars were also similar weights in 1994 and 1995. With the engines switching to 3.0 it also favored a V10.

Benetton had to intergrate the larger V10 Renault quite late in the season once the 1995 car was well into its development. This is why in part this car is without doubt the worst car Schumacher won a title in and consider very hard to setup and always on a knife edge, it was not a good car. He won the title because the drivers in the cars better or equal to it were no where near as good as Schumacher (Both Williams and Ferrari drivers).

Williams knew all along they would be switching to the V10 3.0 and was quick right away, Hill should have won the first 3 races of 1995. Your post was in relation to Senna adapting to 1995 rules, what did he have to adapt to exactly and why would you suggest such when history shows him as probably the most adaptable driver of all time. 1994-1995 would have been one of the more stable periods during Senna's career.

No, you got me completely wrong, as I think you didn't follow the conversation. What I'm saying is that the changes of 1995 rules were a direct effect of Senna's death. They decided to slow down the cars, take out HP and wing, along with the chassis design and testing changes in order to make the cars safer. So in the "if that hadn't happened" scenario, then the Benetton would probably not have changed so drastically. So it is probably not a fair assessment of what would have happened in 1995 had Senna not died, as the cars would probably not have changed. Benetton with the nice and light V8 may have come on top if they focused their development on the '94 car. So in effect Schumacher could have beaten Senna, at least in 1995, which was what we were arguing.

Is this clearer? It has nothing to do with Senna's adaptability. It may be way off the mark, but this is my train of thought as to how they may have fared in 1995.

Benetton had a big change from 1994 to 1995, Williams did not. So I don't get your point? Benetton needed a competitive 3.0 litre engine, Ford could not offer them one. So either way Benetton were going to significantly change going from 1994 to 1995 as Ford did not develop a works 3.0 litre engine. That is why Benetton left them, Fords budget was about 1/4 of Renaults. The cars were also similar weights in 1994 and 1995. With the engines switching to 3.0 it also favored a V10.

Benetton had to intergrate the larger V10 Renault quite late in the season once the 1995 car was well into its development. This is why in part this car is without doubt the worst car Schumacher won a title in and consider very hard to setup and always on a knife edge, it was not a good car. He won the title because the drivers in the cars better or equal to it were no where near as good as Schumacher (Both Williams and Ferrari drivers).

Williams knew all along they would be switching to the V10 3.0 and was quick right away, Hill should have won the first 3 races of 1995. Your post was in relation to Senna adapting to 1995 rules, what did he have to adapt to exactly and why would you suggest such when history shows him as probably the most adaptable driver of all time. 1994-1995 would have been one of the more stable periods during Senna's career.

No, you got me completely wrong, as I think you didn't follow the conversation. What I'm saying is that the changes of 1995 rules were a direct effect of Senna's death. They decided to slow down the cars, take out HP and wing, along with the chassis design and testing changes in order to make the cars safer. So in the "if that hadn't happened" scenario, then the Benetton would probably not have changed so drastically. So it is probably not a fair assessment of what would have happened in 1995 had Senna not died, as the cars would probably not have changed. Benetton with the nice and light V8 may have come on top if they focused their development on the '94 car. So in effect Schumacher could have beaten Senna, at least in 1995, which was what we were arguing.

Is this clearer? It has nothing to do with Senna's adaptability. It may be way off the mark, but this is my train of thought as to how they may have fared in 1995.

I am pretty sure the decision to switch to 3.0 litre occurred before Senna's death. Benetton were already on that path for 1995.

Senna among team bosses and other drivers were already calling for changes to the sport due to the amount of big accidents that had already occurred prior to Imola in which there was also 2 huge accidents and of course Ratzenberger's death. The cars were already on course to be slowed down made more stable even if Senna survived his accident.

The Benetton was also only ever quicker than the Williams for the first 5-6 races when the Williams was below par having all its gadgets removed. Schumacher lapped Hill in 3 of first 4 races and was a minute ahead in the other when Hill retired. By the end of 1994 Damon Hill was on Schumacher's pace, which tells you all you need to know about the relative pace of the cars. Hill matched him in adelaide and beat him in the wet in Japan as well as running him close in Jerez. The last 3 races of the year.

Benetton had a big change from 1994 to 1995, Williams did not. So I don't get your point? Benetton needed a competitive 3.0 litre engine, Ford could not offer them one. So either way Benetton were going to significantly change going from 1994 to 1995 as Ford did not develop a works 3.0 litre engine. That is why Benetton left them, Fords budget was about 1/4 of Renaults. The cars were also similar weights in 1994 and 1995. With the engines switching to 3.0 it also favored a V10.

Benetton had to intergrate the larger V10 Renault quite late in the season once the 1995 car was well into its development. This is why in part this car is without doubt the worst car Schumacher won a title in and consider very hard to setup and always on a knife edge, it was not a good car. He won the title because the drivers in the cars better or equal to it were no where near as good as Schumacher (Both Williams and Ferrari drivers).

Williams knew all along they would be switching to the V10 3.0 and was quick right away, Hill should have won the first 3 races of 1995. Your post was in relation to Senna adapting to 1995 rules, what did he have to adapt to exactly and why would you suggest such when history shows him as probably the most adaptable driver of all time. 1994-1995 would have been one of the more stable periods during Senna's career.

No, you got me completely wrong, as I think you didn't follow the conversation. What I'm saying is that the changes of 1995 rules were a direct effect of Senna's death. They decided to slow down the cars, take out HP and wing, along with the chassis design and testing changes in order to make the cars safer. So in the "if that hadn't happened" scenario, then the Benetton would probably not have changed so drastically. So it is probably not a fair assessment of what would have happened in 1995 had Senna not died, as the cars would probably not have changed. Benetton with the nice and light V8 may have come on top if they focused their development on the '94 car. So in effect Schumacher could have beaten Senna, at least in 1995, which was what we were arguing.

Is this clearer? It has nothing to do with Senna's adaptability. It may be way off the mark, but this is my train of thought as to how they may have fared in 1995.

I am pretty sure the decision to switch to 3.0 litre occurred before Senna's death. Benetton were already on that path for 1995.

Senna among team bosses and other drivers were already calling for changes to the sport due to the amount of big accidents that had already occurred prior to Imola in which there was also 2 huge accidents and of course Ratzenberger's death. The cars were already on course to be slowed down made more stable even if Senna survived his accident.

The Benetton was also only ever quicker than the Williams for the first 5-6 races when the Williams was below par having all its gadgets removed. Schumacher lapped Hill in 3 of first 4 races and was a minute ahead in the other when Hill retired. By the end of 1994 Damon Hill was on Schumacher's pace, which tells you all you need to know about the relative pace of the cars. Hill matched him in adelaide and beat him in the wet in Japan as well as running him close in Jerez. The last 3 races of the year.

Indeed there were talks about it and Senna was very vocal regarding the cars, primarily because the driver aids were removed. He had mentioned that he expected a lot of accidents because of that. But originally the engine reduction was programmed for 1996 onwards if I'm not mistaken, and even then it would have been tricky. Getting all manufacturers to design a new engine wasn't an easy task. In fact, it went to 1998 before they all ran 3.0 V10's, first time that they had such homogeneity in the engine department throughout the grid. Senna's death sped all of these up. Cosworth in their book "the search for power" referred to the decision to switch to 3.0 engines as a very abrupt one (it happens that I was reading this!).

What I'm saying is that it was not a definite change for 1995, from memory at least.

As for the car development, Williams had caught up with their 1994 rev 2 car, but that does not make it a definite winner for 1995. It's debatable what would have happened, as formidable as a Senna-Newey combo may sound.